Lost in the shuffle of yesterday’s most recent installments of Portland’s ongoing psychodrama was this article, explaining the difference between the lies told by two different mayors — and why one of them is a criminal and the other is not. The crux of it seems to be this: one transgression happens to be explicitly spelled out in statute, and thus is punishable; the other sin is not, and thus is not subject to legal reproach.
Let’s compare and contrast, as they say in academia. On the one hand, a candidate fibs about her educational bona fides, is elected, sworn in, and later confronted with the untruth. On the other hand, consider the other candidate, who consorts with an underage person, has sex with said person when it becomes legal, is accused of having the affair, lies about having the affair, wins the election, is sworn in, and after admitting the lie acknowledges that he lied because at the time he feared the knowledge would affect the success of his campaign. Think long and hard about this: exactly how many votes do you think were swayed in each case by the presence of untrue and admittedly false information?
It appears the mayor's mendacious ways continue unabated, by the way, which brings to mind a bit of courtroom procedure, wherein, at the end of a trial, a judge instructs jurors to evaluate the credibility of each witness, and to weigh (or discard) the testimony of each witness based upon his or her credibility. With this standard in mind, take a look at the latest episode of the Liar in Chief, and ask yourself: Can this man possibly be telling the truth?
Not even a close call, is it?